Is this fee correct ?

[Santa Maria]

When a bailiff turned up and I stupidly let him in , he made a list of certain items that could be seized if a regular payment was not kept up. I now have the bailiff problem sorted out as my LA took back the debt on condition that I clear the bailiffs fees. The fees are £77.50. Now , he only came once with no prior arrangement , sat in my living room , wrote on a few papers , I signed a WPA , and off he went. So given what I have said , if a first visit is £24.40 , (no second visit), and the WPA fee is £12.00, how could he possibly reach the figure of £77.50 ?. What other fees can he add ? A levy fee ?. If so , how much ?. The company is called Ross and Roberts. Any help with this would be very much appreciated.

Thank you.

[andie_303]

he shouldn't be able to levy on the first visit anyway i don't think so it should just be £24.50

[Santa Maria]

he shouldn't be able to levy on the first visit anyway i don't think so it should just be £24.50

 

Thanks andie. I just hope someone will confirm about the levy on a first visit. What about the WPA fee ? That would still apply wouldn't it ?

[hallowitch]

yes they can levy on the first visit

but they cant charge a visit fee and walking possession fee £12

 

and you would have to know how much the liability order was for to work out the levy fee

THE COUNCIL TAX (ADMINISTRATION AND

ENFORCEMENT) REGULATIONS 1992 (SI 1992/613 AS

AMENDED BY SI 1993/773, SI 1998/295, SI 2003/2211, SI 2006/3395 AND SI 2007/501

(SCHEDULE 5)

NOTICE OF

CHARGES CONNECTED WITH DISTRESS

1. The sum in respect of charges connected with the distress which may be aggregated under

regulation 45(2) shall be set out in the following Table-

(1)

Matters connected with distress

(2)

Charges

A For making a visit to premises with a view

to levying distress (where no levy is

made) –

i) where the visit is the first or only such

visit £24.50

ii) where the visit is the second such

visit:£18

 

 

2.—(1) In heads A and B of the Table to paragraph 1, "the relevant amount" with respect to a visit or a levy means—

• (a) where the sum due at the time of the visit or of the levy (as the case may be) does not exceed £100, £12.50,
  

• (b) where the sum due at the time of the visit or of the levy (as the case may be) exceeds that amount, 12½ per cent. on the first £100 of the sum due, 4 per cent. on the next £400, 2½ per cent. on the next £1,500, 1 per cent. on the next £8,000 and ¼ per cent. on any additional sum;
  
• (2) Where a charge has arisen under head B with respect to an amount, no further charge may be aggregated under heads A or B in respect of that amount.
  

and the sum due at any time for these purposes means so much of the amount in respect of which the liability order concerned was made as is outstanding at the time.

[Santa Maria]

Hallowitch , the liability was £505. I am being charged £12 for the WP fee , and I have no idea about a visit fee.

You say that "They can't charge a visit fee and walking possession fee £12 " Forgive my ignorance , but is the visit fee part of the £12 you mention , or is that a seperate issue ?

[Santa Maria]

I appreciate that most of you are busy dealing with more urgent issues than mine , and rightly so , but could someone please quickly answer my question above as I need to get the ball rolling regarding fees.

Thank you.

[hallowitch]

THE COUNCIL TAX (ADMINISTRATION AND

ENFORCEMENT) REGULATIONS 1992 (SI 1992/613 AS

AMENDED BY SI 1993/773, SI 1998/295, SI 2003/2211, SI 2006/3395 AND SI 2007/501

(SCHEDULE 5)

NOTICE OF

CHARGES CONNECTED WITH DISTRESS

1. The sum in respect of charges connected with the distress which may be aggregated under

regulation 45(2) shall be set out in the following Table-

(1)

Matters connected with distress

(2)

Charges

A For making a visit to premises with a view

to levying distress (where no levy is

made) –

i) where the visit is the first or only such

visit £24.50

ii) where the visit is the second such £18

this is what they can charge you if they they come to your home (to levy goods ) and you are out thats A

 

 

.—(1) In heads A and B of the Table to paragraph 1, "the relevant amount" with respect to a visit or a levy means—

• (a) where the sum due at the time of the visit or of the levy (as the case may be) does not exceed £100, £12.50,
  
• (b) where the sum due at the time of the visit or of the levy (as the case may be) exceeds that amount, 12½ per cent. on the first £100 of the sum due, 4 per cent. on the next £400, 2½ per cent. on the next £1,500, 1 per cent. on the next £8,000 and ¼ per cent. on any additional sum;
  

SO they have now done a levy and charged a walking possisions fee levy fee they cant also charge a visit fee £24.50 on the same day

• (2) Where a charge has arisen under head B with respect to an amount, no further charge may be aggregated under heads A or B in respect of that amount
  

hope you understand this if not ask again

Edited July 30, 2009 by hallowitch

[Slimrabbit]

It would appear you are being charged the following

a first visit fee of 24.50

 

Levey fees First £100 24.50

4% of the next £400 16.00

Walking possesion 12.00

 

Total of 77.00 fees sound correct but not if they levied on the same day as a first vist fee. This charge relates to a visit were NO LEVY takes place.

[hallowitch]

It would appear you are being charged the following

a first visit fee of 24.50

 

Levey fees First £100 24.50

4% of the next £400 16.00

Walking possession 12.00

 

Total of 77.00 fees sound correct but not if they levied on the same day as a first vist fee. This charge relates to a visit were NO LEVY takes place.

 

 

explained better than my explanation in fairness to me my grandson here

[Santa Maria]

I have just had this reply from a email requesting clarification regarding fees.

First visit fee £24.50

Levy fee.......£41.00

WPA............£ 12.00.....................total £77.50

Are these figures correct ?

I have some doubt about the levy fee , but I have no idea !!

[pink_eeyore]

The levy fee is correct but the first visit fee should not have been applied as they managed to levy. It should be 41+12=53